This is lame. You use one frame of a video that has been copied a million of times, and therefore not the original, but nevertheless you seem sure in your case.
After watching this i only see one seeing what he want to see. I always thought the patterson film was fake, but after watching National geographics American Paranormal, I actually believe that the movie is the real deal.
I would advise people to watch a serious documentary were the real film is beeing analysed, not a copy!
@mig97217 I'll put forth the idea to you that NG didn't have an original copy of the film taken by Patterson. You see, Bill Munns has noted that there is what I recognize as a "cat and dog" in the Patterson's wife copy and all other copies. How did it get there. Bill did an excellent job of comparing versions of the films and he believes the film is real. Watch the video where I show the cat and dog - hard to miss and much harder to explain.
@DumDDumDum then you better prove that NG didnt get the real film from a bankbox..
Cat and dog?
So far i've not seen anyone who can fake the movement. And for me the most interesting thing is the creature(or man) is not turning it's head but turning it's whole body. Why is that? Well probably because of large trapzius muscles, like in ape's. A Gorilla or orangutang cant move it's neck like humans because of the large Trapz. Only thing i see is a blurry picture here, sorry :(
As much as I hate the fake videos of bigfoot where goobers draw in squatches out of bushes, this is in a way, worse. We know it is fake! Why go through all this trouble? Moneymaker has proven time and again to be a poser. He and BOBO the clown see a "squatch" at every turn. Could bigfoot be real, sure it could, but its probably not. And this film (P/G) is certainly a hoax, anyone who cant see that are seeing what they want to see and ignoring the obvious.
A real unknown ape may not be structured like a gorilla,orangatang,or chimpanzee-or a giganthropus for that matter-but I doubt it would have flat feet like plywood cutouts,muscles that slipped and bulged out of position leaving it herniated, or eyes recessed into its head allowing only tunnel vision-how would it survive.....except in legend? Maybe that's it.....?
This is even stupider than all the idiot bigfoot researchers that see eyeshine everywhere they look. I'll agree with you on one point. It isn't a gorilla! The author is a friggin imbecile.
Try explaining what you have seen rather than criticize the author. If you can't explain it then why not accept what others see. As always, adverse criticism attacks the author and not the content. Just another whining loser.
Please go away. Your childish banter and total lack of originality bores me even worse than this shitty video of yours. Your name suits you. One more time...my original post said, "This video shows...jack shit. oh well." That is all. Now stop stalking me please.
LOL. Can't take it can you! Like Moneymaker, can't argue - just go ahead and crawdad away. I expected it. Attack my name - and you accuse me of being childish. LOL again. PS. I'm not going anywhere. I answer questions and comments - so what is your real problem? If you don't want me to reply don't post. Etiquette 101.
@DumDDumDum Wow. Are you going to make me file a police report? You are the Night Stalker of Youtube. I didn't "attack" your name, son. I said it suits you. You chose it well. Oh, and I didn't ask a question with my original post, I made a statement. Because of this, Etiquette 101 says that no response was necessary. A battle of wits with you isn't even fun, as you are unarmed. I won't read your next rant, Ted Bundy, so don't bother. XOX.
File a police report - I'm shaking - from laughter . While you're filing, find the place where bigfoot gets their nails filed. Never see any on the casts do we.
Etiquette 101 says don't print a disparaging comment for the sake of annoyance. It marks the writer in an unkind fashion. I flung back the excrement in your post and you started crying.
Keep it warm sis while we await to see if the worm is still wiggling.
I'm starting to think that you may be mentally handicapped. AGAIN, I'm not talking about intermembral index, gait, proportions, or the Glickman Report. My original post said that this video sucks...that is all. Go back and read it again, or have your special helper do it for you. If you have a problem with the NASI report, send THEM a poorly worded and misspelled email about it. Good luck.
Do you read your own posts or does your mama have to write them for you. I agreed that it shows jack. The images are from the PG film. So what did you expect? You asked "who has ever said that BF is structured like an ape". So I told you. What can be more simpler than that? It all goes to show that you ignore anything that might upset your cradle. So cry a while and sulk as long as you like. Maybe mama will suckle you again.
@DumDDumDum I stand by my statement that the video shows....jack shit. It's poorly done, boring, and never gets to the point. And who has ever said that BF is structured like an ape? The fact that it would be bipedal means it is not structured like an ape.
I have to agree with you that the video may show Jack and Jenny but it doesn't show a bigfoot. Read the Glickman report comparing it to a gorrilla as I talked about then repeat your post so that everyone knows that you can read. You can stand by you statement all you desire. Mayself I prefer honesty.
alright, heres food for thought. Your video is about assuming that bigfoot is structured like an ape....which its not. I want you to go catch a bigfoot then tell me that the nose is out of alignment or some or bs in this video because NOBODY really knows what bigfoot looks like.
Of the thousands of people reporting that they have seen a bigfoot I question where you came up with the idea that "nobody really knows what bigfoot looks like". It was the Glickman report that said it had the characteristics of an ape. Give him your left overs. You and I both agree that it isn't related to an ape nor is there any similarity to its motion as Meldrum reports. When I catch a bigfoot it'll probably be on my posterior.
In the MK Davis stills, you can see the seperation of a top and bottom part of the suit. It's at least two pieces. Another thing is to look at the feet. In the video that Davis touched up you can clearly see a piece of loose cloth flopping around the right foot. It's fake people.
Some can't see the small things. The small things add up. At some point the sum reaches a point that tilts the story line to one that can't be sustained. At that point believing becomes a matter of choice rather than reason.
I dont care what you say ,this is still a real life bigfoot in the video ,no matter what you say,i can tell a man in a costume from a human looking ape thing ,and this video looks real.
Did you see Santa Claws? Did you see the cat and dog? Did you see the monkey? Can you really tell a human in an ape suit? If you haven't seen the others things that I mentioned then how do I know you can see at all?
Don't need to "try". All you have to do is watch and listen to documentaries involving interviews with special effects folks who are asked about whether or not they can duplicate the so-called "costume." NONE of them have come close!
Also, you're obviously not a football fan. There's not a football uniform on Earth where you can actually see muscle movement underneath the entire uniform. You can see muscle movement in the legs, buttocks and back in the P.G. film.
@flapjack9999 Philip Morris of Morris Costumes stated that he made the original costume in a documentary. Leroy Blevins, Sr has made a very similar costume. Unless you have X-ray vision, you are incapable of seeing anything beneath the costume except where it is torn or loose. You did see the separation in the costume didn't you? What about the extra teats? Of course if you can't see these things then you won't be able to see the dogs and monkeys in my latest videos.
@DumDDumDum Phillip Morris huh? and where is the costume today? You just don't want to admit that this is a real creature you're looking at here. You'll take anyone's word who comes along who says they made the costume and just naturally assume it to be true without even analyzing the details of the figure itself. You're absolutely 100% wrong, wrong, wrong. You can very easily see the muscle movement in the creature. With a football uniform you'd need X-Ray eyes. Time for you to wake up!! Study!
Where are the diapers your mother covered your butt with. Imagine that they contained the same quality of stuff the suit did. Why would one want to keep it?
I didn't take Morris' word. He said it. You have to "prove" him wrong so do it. Can't can you! Caught in your own device.
@DumDDumDum Morris was never able to "demonstrate" that he could do it. His "claims" fell FAR short of being even remotely believable. You may want to start educating yourself on this topic. If acting immature is your only debate tactic, it makes your opinion even less worthy of consideration. Nothing more to be said.
@flapjack9999 Acting immature? Please don't put me in the category of Matt Moneymaker.
I haven't seen any statement from you regarding facts. Argue the video and quit repeating things that people now know to be untrue. "Discussed a thousand times" doesn't prove any thing. Look at the separation of the sleeve and explain how that happen. A wound like that would have killed any animal if only from resulting infections. Cleanliness has not been noted to be a attribute of a bigfoot.
@flapjack9999 I love this. Are you really claiming that you can make out muscle movement in a video that was low-quality when it was shot in the 60's?
The question of whether someone can reproduce the costume is totally relevant. If no one can do it today, what are the chances that someone did it in 1967?
@flapjack9999 Why haven't you tried. If you haven't the ambition, then how can you take issue with the fact that others haven't tried or would even want to. Why don't you prove that the talent doesn't exist for making the costume. Can't can you. There are too many special effects in movies today that people are only laughing at the fallacy of relevance.
Wrong. I used the photo that MK Davis produced. The same photot that everyone seemed to agree was the best enlargement anyone had made. Your argument would be with him. I'm aware of how he did it and I wouldn't have due to the introduced of anonomies. But he did a good job.
Why would anyone want to? A reproduction would not prove anything. You are simply avoiding acceptance of material in the film that doesn't fit your desires. Discuss the sleeve separating. If it were a rip in an arm, blood would be everywhere. You didn't see any blood did you?
@DumDDumDum That's exactly my point. It's not a matter of anyone "wanting" to, it's a matter of can they reproduce it? So far, the answer is "no." Your analysis is completely theoretical. Your making all these claims without actually doing it.
@flapjack9999 The question of whether someone can reproduce the costume is irrelevant. The answer is not "no", the answer is why would anyone want to? As you can see on MK Davis's photo enlargement, there was/is ignorance about how it was constructed. Why would anyone waste time and money just to prove an idiot is an idiot?
Cheap shoulder pads used straps of elasticized cotton which were permanently attached to the pads. Others used thin, flat slides with metal teeth to clamp onto the stretchy fabric straps. The better pads used classic belt & buckle, with the prong inserted through one of many prefab holes in a plastic, fabric or even leather strap. There were NO "D-rings" because they simply didn't work.
As for the other items you "see"? Sheer wishful thinking. Next time try harder to be truly objective.
@jum1801 D rings were tried in the 60's about the same time as the change to plastic and facemasks. The D's were rounded and wouldn't scratch or slice through flesh. Never saw a pronged buckle used but I can't say with certainty that they weren't.
But suppose you are right. You are saying I'm wrong while providing a explanation for others to consider an alternative connector for the strap. Thus you aren't saying that shoulder pads weren't used, all you are saying is that
@jum1801 -cont- I might be wrong about the connector. I only stated what I see in the photo.
Who is objective, delusional or dishonest? You didn't "allow it to be genuine" you made it so. Else your reply (tirade) would have been shorter and to the point.
As I stated, the separation in the sleeve is enough to prove the film was a hoax. You can see can't you? Rebuttal?
Suspicion tells me that you might have played one game too many.
But your shoulder pads and d-ring claim is so bizarre as to be delusional. Do you know anything about pads from the 60's? I do. I wore all kinds of shoulder pads from the early 60's to the mid 70's - 20 pair or more. I saw hundreds of others. In that time I never ONCE wore or saw shoulder pads with d-rings anywhere on them.
You say d-rings tightened the underarm straps so the pads secured to the shoulders. Wrong: it was ALWAYS a buckle-type system. (Cont'd in Pt 3)
I don't know what to make of the PG film, but I allow it could be genuine. On the other hand, I detest someone who mischaracterizes evidence or facts in an argument. It is intellectual dishonesty - lying.
The ONLY way anyone can "see" the items you claim are there is to be convinced beforehand that they exist, and that the film is a fraud. No one can truly say that those blobs and shadows are "d-rings", "ridges","suspenders" etc. It could also be the face of Jesus. (cont'd)
Nice try, but your effort reminds me of several people staring at clouds, and all of them seeing different shapes. Besides, in order to make your observations, you really should be working with the original film and not a multi-generational copy such as this one.
Please come up with something original. Your eyes are better than that. No one believes that you can't see the separation in the material on the arm. So why post something that others know is untrue. It is disheartening to know that you are simply trying to discredit me and not the analysis.
PS - The original film has been hidden for over 40 years if not destroyed. Why?
@DumDDumDum: Well, all I can say is that you have not convinced me of anything that your video shows, but I'm sure you don't care. But like I said, nice try. I have no idea why the original film has been hidden. Maybe it is a conspiracy!
My senses tell me that you are convinced else you would put forth an argument of facts. You don't want to admit that you have been wrong so you make a half hearted attempt to reason away the facts.
Conspiracy - that would seem a given since the original film disappeared and hasn't resurfaced.
The reason y everything you showed about proof of it being a costume is because either your just seeing to carefully (the footage is blurry), or the footage has been digitally copied over and over, and when it does that it shows signs of visual discrepancy. Only the original footage is accurate..If you look into more of it's documentaries, maybe it'll change your mind about it..these sources are good, watch them on youtube:
This was MK Davis' extractions. As he has made presentations and talks giving assurances that the film wasn't a hoax, you should question him about the accuracy of his enlargement. But you won't will you?
You see, I can't get the experts to discuss the videos I posted about the Patterson film. You have been led astray my friend. If you believe in the film being real and that the experts really are, ask them to explain. See how long you last in BRFO forums.
This is lame. You use one frame of a video that has been copied a million of times, and therefore not the original, but nevertheless you seem sure in your case.
After watching this i only see one seeing what he want to see. I always thought the patterson film was fake, but after watching National geographics American Paranormal, I actually believe that the movie is the real deal.
I would advise people to watch a serious documentary were the real film is beeing analysed, not a copy!
mig97217 3 days ago
@mig97217 I'll put forth the idea to you that NG didn't have an original copy of the film taken by Patterson. You see, Bill Munns has noted that there is what I recognize as a "cat and dog" in the Patterson's wife copy and all other copies. How did it get there. Bill did an excellent job of comparing versions of the films and he believes the film is real. Watch the video where I show the cat and dog - hard to miss and much harder to explain.
DumDDumDum 1 day ago
@DumDDumDum then you better prove that NG didnt get the real film from a bankbox..
Cat and dog?
So far i've not seen anyone who can fake the movement. And for me the most interesting thing is the creature(or man) is not turning it's head but turning it's whole body. Why is that? Well probably because of large trapzius muscles, like in ape's. A Gorilla or orangutang cant move it's neck like humans because of the large Trapz. Only thing i see is a blurry picture here, sorry :(
mig97217 1 day ago
As much as I hate the fake videos of bigfoot where goobers draw in squatches out of bushes, this is in a way, worse. We know it is fake! Why go through all this trouble? Moneymaker has proven time and again to be a poser. He and BOBO the clown see a "squatch" at every turn. Could bigfoot be real, sure it could, but its probably not. And this film (P/G) is certainly a hoax, anyone who cant see that are seeing what they want to see and ignoring the obvious.
craig79792000 1 month ago
A real unknown ape may not be structured like a gorilla,orangatang,or chimpanzee-or a giganthropus for that matter-but I doubt it would have flat feet like plywood cutouts,muscles that slipped and bulged out of position leaving it herniated, or eyes recessed into its head allowing only tunnel vision-how would it survive.....except in legend? Maybe that's it.....?
muskratist 1 month ago
This is even stupider than all the idiot bigfoot researchers that see eyeshine everywhere they look. I'll agree with you on one point. It isn't a gorilla! The author is a friggin imbecile.
cunnidvd 5 months ago
@cunnidvd
Try explaining what you have seen rather than criticize the author. If you can't explain it then why not accept what others see. As always, adverse criticism attacks the author and not the content. Just another whining loser.
DumDDumDum 5 months ago
Please go away. Your childish banter and total lack of originality bores me even worse than this shitty video of yours. Your name suits you. One more time...my original post said, "This video shows...jack shit. oh well." That is all. Now stop stalking me please.
smittysturn 6 months ago
@smittysturn
LOL. Can't take it can you! Like Moneymaker, can't argue - just go ahead and crawdad away. I expected it. Attack my name - and you accuse me of being childish. LOL again. PS. I'm not going anywhere. I answer questions and comments - so what is your real problem? If you don't want me to reply don't post. Etiquette 101.
DumDDumDum 6 months ago
@DumDDumDum Wow. Are you going to make me file a police report? You are the Night Stalker of Youtube. I didn't "attack" your name, son. I said it suits you. You chose it well. Oh, and I didn't ask a question with my original post, I made a statement. Because of this, Etiquette 101 says that no response was necessary. A battle of wits with you isn't even fun, as you are unarmed. I won't read your next rant, Ted Bundy, so don't bother. XOX.
smittysturn 6 months ago
@smittysturn
File a police report - I'm shaking - from laughter . While you're filing, find the place where bigfoot gets their nails filed. Never see any on the casts do we.
Etiquette 101 says don't print a disparaging comment for the sake of annoyance. It marks the writer in an unkind fashion. I flung back the excrement in your post and you started crying.
Keep it warm sis while we await to see if the worm is still wiggling.
DumDDumDum 6 months ago
I'm starting to think that you may be mentally handicapped. AGAIN, I'm not talking about intermembral index, gait, proportions, or the Glickman Report. My original post said that this video sucks...that is all. Go back and read it again, or have your special helper do it for you. If you have a problem with the NASI report, send THEM a poorly worded and misspelled email about it. Good luck.
smittysturn 7 months ago
@smittysturn
Do you read your own posts or does your mama have to write them for you. I agreed that it shows jack. The images are from the PG film. So what did you expect? You asked "who has ever said that BF is structured like an ape". So I told you. What can be more simpler than that? It all goes to show that you ignore anything that might upset your cradle. So cry a while and sulk as long as you like. Maybe mama will suckle you again.
DumDDumDum 6 months ago
this video shows...jack shit. oh well.
smittysturn 7 months ago
@smittysturn
This video show the character isn't structured like an ape. The elbow above the hips indicates that.
If no one knows what a BF looks like, why are there so many photos.
As far as I can tell I've been as close to catching a BF as anyone. Think about it.
DumDDumDum 7 months ago
@DumDDumDum I stand by my statement that the video shows....jack shit. It's poorly done, boring, and never gets to the point. And who has ever said that BF is structured like an ape? The fact that it would be bipedal means it is not structured like an ape.
smittysturn 7 months ago
@smittysturn
I have to agree with you that the video may show Jack and Jenny but it doesn't show a bigfoot. Read the Glickman report comparing it to a gorrilla as I talked about then repeat your post so that everyone knows that you can read. You can stand by you statement all you desire. Mayself I prefer honesty.
DumDDumDum 7 months ago
alright, heres food for thought. Your video is about assuming that bigfoot is structured like an ape....which its not. I want you to go catch a bigfoot then tell me that the nose is out of alignment or some or bs in this video because NOBODY really knows what bigfoot looks like.
Fireundertaker 7 months ago
@Fireundertaker
Of the thousands of people reporting that they have seen a bigfoot I question where you came up with the idea that "nobody really knows what bigfoot looks like". It was the Glickman report that said it had the characteristics of an ape. Give him your left overs. You and I both agree that it isn't related to an ape nor is there any similarity to its motion as Meldrum reports. When I catch a bigfoot it'll probably be on my posterior.
DumDDumDum 7 months ago
In the MK Davis stills, you can see the seperation of a top and bottom part of the suit. It's at least two pieces. Another thing is to look at the feet. In the video that Davis touched up you can clearly see a piece of loose cloth flopping around the right foot. It's fake people.
longtalltexan63 8 months ago
Im sorry but this video didn't prove anything
dinomiteblu 8 months ago
@dinomiteblu
Some can't see the small things. The small things add up. At some point the sum reaches a point that tilts the story line to one that can't be sustained. At that point believing becomes a matter of choice rather than reason.
DumDDumDum 8 months ago
Cryptozoology novel see video book trailer
dltanner99 10 months ago
I dont care what you say ,this is still a real life bigfoot in the video ,no matter what you say,i can tell a man in a costume from a human looking ape thing ,and this video looks real.
Spulpacz 1 year ago
@Spulpacz
Did you see Santa Claws? Did you see the cat and dog? Did you see the monkey? Can you really tell a human in an ape suit? If you haven't seen the others things that I mentioned then how do I know you can see at all?
DumDDumDum 1 year ago
Don't need to "try". All you have to do is watch and listen to documentaries involving interviews with special effects folks who are asked about whether or not they can duplicate the so-called "costume." NONE of them have come close!
Also, you're obviously not a football fan. There's not a football uniform on Earth where you can actually see muscle movement underneath the entire uniform. You can see muscle movement in the legs, buttocks and back in the P.G. film.
flapjack9999 1 year ago
@flapjack9999 Philip Morris of Morris Costumes stated that he made the original costume in a documentary. Leroy Blevins, Sr has made a very similar costume. Unless you have X-ray vision, you are incapable of seeing anything beneath the costume except where it is torn or loose. You did see the separation in the costume didn't you? What about the extra teats? Of course if you can't see these things then you won't be able to see the dogs and monkeys in my latest videos.
DumDDumDum 1 year ago
@DumDDumDum Phillip Morris huh? and where is the costume today? You just don't want to admit that this is a real creature you're looking at here. You'll take anyone's word who comes along who says they made the costume and just naturally assume it to be true without even analyzing the details of the figure itself. You're absolutely 100% wrong, wrong, wrong. You can very easily see the muscle movement in the creature. With a football uniform you'd need X-Ray eyes. Time for you to wake up!! Study!
flapjack9999 1 year ago
@flapjack9999
Where are the diapers your mother covered your butt with. Imagine that they contained the same quality of stuff the suit did. Why would one want to keep it?
I didn't take Morris' word. He said it. You have to "prove" him wrong so do it. Can't can you! Caught in your own device.
DumDDumDum 1 year ago
@DumDDumDum Morris was never able to "demonstrate" that he could do it. His "claims" fell FAR short of being even remotely believable. You may want to start educating yourself on this topic. If acting immature is your only debate tactic, it makes your opinion even less worthy of consideration. Nothing more to be said.
flapjack9999 8 months ago
@flapjack9999 Acting immature? Please don't put me in the category of Matt Moneymaker.
I haven't seen any statement from you regarding facts. Argue the video and quit repeating things that people now know to be untrue. "Discussed a thousand times" doesn't prove any thing. Look at the separation of the sleeve and explain how that happen. A wound like that would have killed any animal if only from resulting infections. Cleanliness has not been noted to be a attribute of a bigfoot.
DumDDumDum 8 months ago
@flapjack9999 I love this. Are you really claiming that you can make out muscle movement in a video that was low-quality when it was shot in the 60's?
raizumichin 8 months ago
@raizumichin Yep. Including those that are trained to identify such details-Anatomists, etc..
This has already been discussed a thousand times over.
flapjack9999 8 months ago
@flapjack9999 They've no doubt tried to claim that. Not very convincing though.
raizumichin 8 months ago
The question of whether someone can reproduce the costume is totally relevant. If no one can do it today, what are the chances that someone did it in 1967?
flapjack9999 1 year ago
@flapjack9999 Why haven't you tried. If you haven't the ambition, then how can you take issue with the fact that others haven't tried or would even want to. Why don't you prove that the talent doesn't exist for making the costume. Can't can you. There are too many special effects in movies today that people are only laughing at the fallacy of relevance.
DumDDumDum 1 year ago
Your also using a copy that is overexposed and is a copy of a copy of a copy.
flapjack9999 1 year ago
@flapjack9999
Wrong. I used the photo that MK Davis produced. The same photot that everyone seemed to agree was the best enlargement anyone had made. Your argument would be with him. I'm aware of how he did it and I wouldn't have due to the introduced of anonomies. But he did a good job.
DumDDumDum 1 year ago
@DumDDumDum ....and how come no one has been able to reproduce the (alleged) costume?
flapjack9999 1 year ago
A costume has never (even up to now) been reproduced to accurately imitate the P.G. creature. 'Nuf said.
flapjack9999 1 year ago
@flapjack9999
Why would anyone want to? A reproduction would not prove anything. You are simply avoiding acceptance of material in the film that doesn't fit your desires. Discuss the sleeve separating. If it were a rip in an arm, blood would be everywhere. You didn't see any blood did you?
DumDDumDum 1 year ago
@DumDDumDum That's exactly my point. It's not a matter of anyone "wanting" to, it's a matter of can they reproduce it? So far, the answer is "no." Your analysis is completely theoretical. Your making all these claims without actually doing it.
flapjack9999 1 year ago
@flapjack9999 The question of whether someone can reproduce the costume is irrelevant. The answer is not "no", the answer is why would anyone want to? As you can see on MK Davis's photo enlargement, there was/is ignorance about how it was constructed. Why would anyone waste time and money just to prove an idiot is an idiot?
DumDDumDum 1 year ago
@ jum1801
Go to Google and do an image search on:
life "quarterback steve spurrier" "Photo by Bill Eppridge"
Zoom on the connector on Steve Spurrier's shoulder pads. Steve won the Heisman in 66. The photo was from an earlier year.
DumDDumDum 1 year ago
Pt 3
Cheap shoulder pads used straps of elasticized cotton which were permanently attached to the pads. Others used thin, flat slides with metal teeth to clamp onto the stretchy fabric straps. The better pads used classic belt & buckle, with the prong inserted through one of many prefab holes in a plastic, fabric or even leather strap. There were NO "D-rings" because they simply didn't work.
As for the other items you "see"? Sheer wishful thinking. Next time try harder to be truly objective.
jum1801 1 year ago
@jum1801 D rings were tried in the 60's about the same time as the change to plastic and facemasks. The D's were rounded and wouldn't scratch or slice through flesh. Never saw a pronged buckle used but I can't say with certainty that they weren't.
But suppose you are right. You are saying I'm wrong while providing a explanation for others to consider an alternative connector for the strap. Thus you aren't saying that shoulder pads weren't used, all you are saying is that
-cont-
DumDDumDum 1 year ago
@jum1801 -cont- I might be wrong about the connector. I only stated what I see in the photo.
Who is objective, delusional or dishonest? You didn't "allow it to be genuine" you made it so. Else your reply (tirade) would have been shorter and to the point.
As I stated, the separation in the sleeve is enough to prove the film was a hoax. You can see can't you? Rebuttal?
Suspicion tells me that you might have played one game too many.
DumDDumDum 1 year ago
Pt 2
But your shoulder pads and d-ring claim is so bizarre as to be delusional. Do you know anything about pads from the 60's? I do. I wore all kinds of shoulder pads from the early 60's to the mid 70's - 20 pair or more. I saw hundreds of others. In that time I never ONCE wore or saw shoulder pads with d-rings anywhere on them.
You say d-rings tightened the underarm straps so the pads secured to the shoulders. Wrong: it was ALWAYS a buckle-type system. (Cont'd in Pt 3)
jum1801 1 year ago
I don't know what to make of the PG film, but I allow it could be genuine. On the other hand, I detest someone who mischaracterizes evidence or facts in an argument. It is intellectual dishonesty - lying.
The ONLY way anyone can "see" the items you claim are there is to be convinced beforehand that they exist, and that the film is a fraud. No one can truly say that those blobs and shadows are "d-rings", "ridges","suspenders" etc. It could also be the face of Jesus. (cont'd)
jum1801 1 year ago
Nice try, but your effort reminds me of several people staring at clouds, and all of them seeing different shapes. Besides, in order to make your observations, you really should be working with the original film and not a multi-generational copy such as this one.
77RamonesCramps 1 year ago
@77RamonesCramps
Please come up with something original. Your eyes are better than that. No one believes that you can't see the separation in the material on the arm. So why post something that others know is untrue. It is disheartening to know that you are simply trying to discredit me and not the analysis.
PS - The original film has been hidden for over 40 years if not destroyed. Why?
Recite your best excuse.
DumDDumDum 1 year ago
@DumDDumDum: Well, all I can say is that you have not convinced me of anything that your video shows, but I'm sure you don't care. But like I said, nice try. I have no idea why the original film has been hidden. Maybe it is a conspiracy!
77RamonesCramps 1 year ago
@77RamonesCramps
My senses tell me that you are convinced else you would put forth an argument of facts. You don't want to admit that you have been wrong so you make a half hearted attempt to reason away the facts.
Conspiracy - that would seem a given since the original film disappeared and hasn't resurfaced.
Best to you my friend.
DumDDumDum 1 year ago
The reason y everything you showed about proof of it being a costume is because either your just seeing to carefully (the footage is blurry), or the footage has been digitally copied over and over, and when it does that it shows signs of visual discrepancy. Only the original footage is accurate..If you look into more of it's documentaries, maybe it'll change your mind about it..these sources are good, watch them on youtube:
monsterquest critical evidence
a.p. bigfoot
Hope I helped ^_^
ramking09 1 year ago
@ramking09
This was MK Davis' extractions. As he has made presentations and talks giving assurances that the film wasn't a hoax, you should question him about the accuracy of his enlargement. But you won't will you?
You see, I can't get the experts to discuss the videos I posted about the Patterson film. You have been led astray my friend. If you believe in the film being real and that the experts really are, ask them to explain. See how long you last in BRFO forums.
MQ never found a monster!
DumDDumDum 1 year ago
Ok..Let me have my 7.31 minutes back. haha..This video is a total waste of time and proves nothing at all. Geez..debunked my ass.. lol
UfoBigfoot 1 year ago
@UfoBigfoot
Lack of candor isn't a virtue. Why waste peoples time with your silliness!
DumDDumDum 1 year ago
@DumDDumDum Your name says it all....owned! Next time show some facts.
UfoBigfoot 1 year ago
@UfoBigfoot
Desperate enough to attack my name? "No, not content with that, they now include my little dog, Fala" - FDR.
DumDDumDum 1 year ago